top of page

Key Points on Peru's Politically-Motivated Persecution of Alejandro Toledo

Toledo Facts No. 19

April 24, 2019

Arbitrary Arrest, Prosecutorial Misconduct, and Judicial Bias in Peru 


The April 17, 2019, suicide of former Peruvian President Alan Garcia drew international attention to methods employed by Peruvian authorities against Mr. Garcia and other targets of Peru's thoroughly-compromised Odebrecht investigation.  One of the most controversial is the arbitrary arrest and extended detention of persons who have not been tried -- or even charged -- for a criminal offense.


To many observers, arbitrary arrest is a hallmark of tyranny.  In Peru today, arbitrary arrest is routine.  Its defenders insist that arbitrary detention without charges is needed "in the case of powerful leaders with access to great resources that could help them flee the country or obstruct justice," according to an April 18, 2019 AP report on the Garcia suicide.

By one account, however, about half of the people now in Peruvian custody nationwide are held pursuant to arbitrary arrests without charges.  In the Odebrecht context, rather than preventing pre-trial flight from Peru of accused persons, arbitrary arrest instead seems to be more often threatened or imposed to coerce witness statements to bolster prosecutor narratives that, alone, rest on no reliable evidence.  Owing to Peru's politicized, biased judiciary, habeas seems to be of no value against arbitrary arrest.  


Peru's Odebrecht investigation has produced several arbitrary arrests and numerous threats. Former President Ollanta Humala and his wife Nadine Heredia were held for nine months.  


Ailing former President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski faces three years of arbitrary incarceration.  


Two mala fide arbitrary arrest orders are in force against former President Alejandro Toledo, who lawfully and providentially left Peru for his home in the U.S. before they were issued. Witnesses against Toledo have been coerced with threats of arbitrary arrest.

Any serious conversation about arbitrary arrest in Peru must also address the corruption, political bias, and factionalism that permeate the prosecutorial and judicial ranks.  Peru's two-year crusade against Dr. Toledo under the Odebrecht rubric has produced many shameful examples of these abuses.  

Since early 2017 Peru has demanded the extradition of Dr. Toledo from the U.S. based on media accusations linking him to the Odebrecht scandal which are not supported by reliable evidence. This effort is a continuation of Garcia/Fujimorist camp attempts to harm Dr. Toledo that began before the end of his presidential term in 2006.  Recent violations of Toledo's rights by Peruvian judges, prosecutors, diplomats, and presidents failed to produce any credible evidence against him, confirming strong suspicions about political motives and denials of Toledo's due process rights.  

For two years, Peruvian authorities have consistently applied an anti-Toledo double standard and displayed the willingness to ignore criminal conduct involving persons aligned with Toledo's political adversaries.  In January, for example, the prosecutor heading Peru's central authority for international judicial cooperation went unpunished after he instructed other prosecutors not to question Marcelo Odebrecht about the late Alan Garcia's contacts with the Odebrecht enterprise.  The same prosecutor blocked Toledo defense access to information about Peru's U.S. extradition demand.

Also in April, Peru's anti-Toledo Congress quashed a misconduct review involving Pedro Chavarry, a loyal Fujimorist and Peru's disgraced former attorney general.  Likewise, Peruvian authorities have neither reversed nor even reviewed the judicial record of corrupt former Peruvian Supreme Court Justice Cesar Hinostroza, who is awaiting extradition to Peru from Spain.  Hinostroza, a senior Fujimori loyalist, summarily rejected numerous Toledo petitions for habeas protection against blatant prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.  More than six months after Hinostroza's ouster from the Court and his escape to Spain, these orders remain in force despite audiotaped proof of Hinostroza's bias and dishonesty.  

Lately, Peruvian authorities and Peru's sensationalist media are cheering admitted felon Josef Maiman's undisclosed April agreement to help convict Dr. Toledo on a variety of politically-motivated accusations, notwithstanding overwhelming evidence of Maiman's guilt and Toledo's innocence.


Their enthusiasm is undampened by several contrary facts.  First, in official on-the-record statements, over the years Maiman directly exonerated Toledo of wrongdoing in the Odebrecht and Ecoteva matters.  Second, Maiman told the Spanish wire service EFE, in a revealing on-the-record September 2017 interview, that he came under enormous pressure from Peruvian prosecutors (a euphemism for coercion) to incriminate Toledo.  Recently Peruvian officials reportedly gave Maiman another ultimatum to cement his cooperation against Toledo, indicating still more coercion.  With the ink barely dry on the Maiman agreement, authorities next rejected a Toledo defense request for access to what is being called Maiman's Impunity Deal with the Peruvian State to convict Toledo at all costs.  


In obvious dilatory steps to allow coordination of Maiman's statements with incarcerated Odebrecht official Jorge Barata (the other prevaricating felon propping up the Peruvian case against Dr. Toledo), Peruvian authorities -- twice -- abruptly and unilaterally postponed the Toledo defense team's scheduled opportunities to pose questions to Barata at his Brazilian penitentiary.  Toledo defense access to Marcelo Odebrecht, also incarcerated in Brazil, was likewise nominally-authorized last year by Peruvian authorities, but has never been permitted in spite of repeated Toledo defense requests.  Official foot-dragging to deny Toledo access to his accusers could not be more obvious.   


Also tellingly, according to pro-government Peruvian media sources, Maiman is off the prosecutorial hook in Peru despite admitting serious personal criminal conduct.  Tens of millions of dollars apparently changed hands between Maiman and Barata, but Maiman reportedly faces no Peruvian incarceration, and will not be tried at all provided he incriminates Toledo on cue.  
On the whole, Peruvian authorities appear to have demanded a low price for Maiman's impunity.  According to press reports, apart from incriminating Toledo (despite the lack of evidence), Maiman need only hand over part of about $35 million in illegal proceeds from his recently-discovered kickback deal with Barata, a deal that Odebrecht and Barata apparently concealed from Brazilian, Peruvian, and U.S. authorities.  The rest of Maiman's tainted fortune will remain untouched, assuming another government does not pursue Maiman for crimes he confessed during Peruvian proceedings.  Maiman will also be permitted to remain in Israel, where he has been and remains out of reach of foreign criminal process -- and thus, Toledo's defense -- for over two years.

Maiman's Impunity Deal with Peruvian authorities now goes for approval to the same biased investigating judge, Richard Concepcion Carhuancho, who set the tone for the politicized Toledo witch hunt in February 2017 by publicly disputing the presumption of Toledo's innocence. 


Arbitrary arrest is a centerpiece of Peru's Odebrecht investigation.  But it cannot be separated from prosecutorial misconduct, judicial corruption, and political bias.  This draconian tool should also be assessed in the light of explicit U.S. Senate concerns expressed during review of the U.S.-Peru extradition treaty of 2001 about "inadequate due process in cases before Peru's special terrorism tribunals" (p. 2, S.Exec.Rpt. 107-12).  While Peruvian tribunals today have all the trappings of civilian courts, the Senate's due process concerns of 2002 are equally well-founded today.

The Toledo matter and Peru's Odebrecht investigation plainly indicate that the rule of law in

Peru does not reflect generally-accepted minimum standards typical of a western democracy.

In the end, unless and until the Peruvian people correct fundamental defects in their prosecutorial and judicial systems, the U.S. and all partner nations are justified in exercising extreme caution with extradition and all other aspects of judicial cooperation with Peru.

Toledo Facts No. 18

April 17, 2019

Statement of Former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo on the death of Alan Garcia


"Elaine and I are deeply saddened by the death of Ex-President Alan Garcia and the transfer of Ex-President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski to intensive care. Thinking of the Peru of today and tomorrow, without anger.

Alejandro and Eliane de Toledo."

Toledo Facts No. 17

January 4, 2019

Statement of Former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo
on Events in Peru  

    Precisely one year ago, I sounded the alarm about threats to the rule of law in Peru posed by factions led by Keiko Fujimori and Alan Garcia.  This week, events in Peru demonstrate that such concerns continue to be justified.

    At this moment, Peruvians should be gathered in their homes to prepare for the Day of the Three Kings.  Instead, they are forced into the streets by clear threats to the rule of law in Peru.  Peruvians are obliged to defend themselves once again from the same anti-democratic political underworld that drove Peru's democratically-elected President from office last year.

   Even with their patroness in opulent detention, that underworld continues to thrive and works to ensure impunity for Keiko Fujimori, Alan Garcia, and their corrupt circles.  Are Peruvians entitled to no peace?  Fujimorism continues its destructive march in Peru.  It has provoked yet another national political crisis to protect its leaders, Keiko Fujimori and Alan Garcia, from the consequences of corrupt behavior.

    Lest any observer conclude that the "system is working" in Peru, the cynical manipulation of Peruvian institutions which we have witnessed in recent days is a classic Fujimorist tactic, reminiscent of the period just prior to the April 1992 Fujimori "autogolpe."  Peru's democratic partners should not let this blatant effort to replicate the lawless authoritarianism of Alberto Fujimori pass quietly. 

    For 25 years, we have fought Fujimorism in Peru.  In the same spirit we align ourselves with those who do it today.  Through the movement of the Cuatro Suyos, almost the entire population of Peru risked their lives to fight the corruption of the Fujimori family.  Today their accomplices work to smear us and avenge themselves.  Our motivation was to leave to our children and their children a Peru where democracy  and strong, honest institutions reign.  But the corrupt politicians and political organizations complicit with the past cling to power.  Larceny loves company.

    This week in Peru another chapter in the Black Book of Fujimorism was written.  Peru's democratic institutions are still in jeopardy.  Before my presidency ended in 2006, the Fujimorist mob had began its pursuit of our family because of our efforts to bring Alberto Fujimori, the Grupo Colina, and others to justice for crimes against innocent Peruvian civilians.  Fujimorists have manipulated the Odebrecht scandal to enable that pursuit.  We are not discouraged and now more than ever, I emphatically reject attacks on the rule of law in Peru.

    The spectacle provoked this week by Attorney General Pedro Chavarry is the fruit of corruption, not defense of the rule of law.  Peruvian democratic institutions are in danger.  In solidarity with all Peruvians, I urge democratic governments everywhere to condemn the Fujimorist provocations which continue to threaten cherished Peruvian liberties.



Toledo Facts No. 16


Over the weekend, there were politicized assertions in the Peruvian press that the Peruvian Executive and Ministerio Publico have lacked zeal  in their effort to drag Dr. Toledo back to Lima in chains from the United States for a politicized show trial.

Complaints from Fujimorist and APRA party bosses about a lack of progress in the Toledo matter are not new.  They are routinely deployed in the Peruvian press for one purpose:   to divert attention from the shocking corruption scandals engulfing Keiko Fujimori, Alan Garcia, and their subordinates in the Peruvian judiciary, legislature, and executive.

In reality, for almost two years the Fujimorist administration in Peru has unjustly and frantically defamed Dr. Toledo to the ends of the earth, abusing the U.S.-Peru extradition treaty and the INTERPOL Charter along the way.
Here are the real problems with the Peruvian extradition effort against Dr. Toledo:  the so-called "evidence" against Dr. Toledo is irreparably tainted, and the proceedings against him in Peru have been characterized by flagrant bias and official misconduct.  Recent revelations about the corrupt Peruvian judiciary only confirm the worst.
The anti-Toledo effort in Peru is a shameful and transparent effort to punish Dr. Toledo and his family for having the audacity to bring Alberto Fujimori to justice, and for standing up to the Fujimorist regime.  “Of course, neither of these is an extraditable offense, and U.S. officials are obligated to reject such judicial persecution.” 

The Peruvian Government has embarrassed itself with the Toledo extradition request.  By abusing the INTERPOL Charter against Dr. Toledo, it has also aligned itself with the Russian Federation's poisoned extradition effort against Mr. William Browder, and the Turkish Government's persecution of Fetullah Gulen.

The Peruvian Government should immediately withdraw its shameful extradition demand for Dr. Toledo.  Otherwise, the United States should firmly reject it.  

Toledo Facts No. 15

Op-ed by President Toledo's advisers in La Republica


Deep crisis in Peru:  politics, narcotics trafficking, and administration of justice

    As private advisers to Dr. Alejandro Toledo in the United States, we have followed with interest the alarming revelations of judicial misconduct in Peru.  Naturally, this proof of systemic judicial corruption and political bias must be taken into account by U.S. officials considering Peru's request for the extradition of Dr. Toledo.

    In every extradition case, U.S. authorities in Washington D.C. are obliged to answer a basic question:  is it proper to ask an Assistant U.S. Attorney to present this case to a magistrate?  The Toledo matter entails proven judicial corruption, absence of probable cause, numerous due process violations in Peru, and clear political motivation.  All in all, an unfortunate mockery of the extradition treaty.  

    Judicial misconduct in the United States is rare, but not unknown.  In 2009 two Pennsylvania judges were charged with entering into an illegal agreement with owners of a private detention center.  The judges sentenced five thousand individuals to the detention center, many without legal representation, in exchange for payments of US$ 3 million.  Both judges were eventually imprisoned and hundreds of their adjudications were reversed.

    In 1986, a U.S. federal judge pressured a Louisiana prosecutor to drop narcotics charges against the son of the judge's former business partner.  Then the judge lied to investigators about his involvement in the narcotics case.  The U.S. Congress removed him from office.  In 1981, another federal judge was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe from two Florida criminals in exchange for a lighter sentence.  Congress also removed him from office.

    In the United States, judicial misconduct is seen as an attack on individual rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and the criminal justice system itself.  In 1787 the authors of the U.S. Constitution included only one requirement for a lifetime appointment as a federal judge:  good behavior.  That standard applies with equal force today.

    U.S. constitutional standards are relevant in the international extradition context.  All extradition demands to the United States must satisfy a fundamental U.S. constitutional requirement:  evidence of probable cause.  However, the U.S-Peru extradition treaty goes further:  the 2000 U.S. Senate resolution of treaty approval that was  authored by Senator Joe Biden and the late Senator Jesse Helms explicitly applied U.S. constitutional standards to the treaty relationship.   This provision directly reflected concern in the Senate about the Fujimori government in Peru.  

    If U.S. probable cause and due process standards are not met, U.S. authorities may not lawfully approve the extradition demand concerned.  Logically, evaluation of the evidence from the requesting state offered to satisfy the probable cause requirement will lead U.S. authorities to evaluate other factors with U.S. constitutional implications.

    Obviously, proven judicial misconduct in the requesting state would be of serious concern to U.S. authorities.  Such misconduct could be fatal to a requesting state extradition effort where it is evident that corrupt and politically-compromised judicial officials in the requesting state were also involved in proceedings against the wanted person.  

    Other factors may affect the point of view of U.S. authorities as they assess circumstances of an extradition demand against the background of U.S. constitutional standards.    

    For example, indicators of judicial bias against the wanted person in the requesting state, or limitations on the presumption of innocence would be evaluated.  Out-of-court statements from judicial officials about the wanted person, to the press or the political branches of the requesting state's government, would be of interest to U.S. officials.  Indicators that judicial officials have tolerated or even encouraged selective or politically-motivated proceedings against the wanted person would be weighed.

    Judicial activity in the requesting state to facilitate or obstruct the wanted person's access to evidence, witnesses, or habeas corpus remedies would also be evaluated.  Notably, Dr. Toledo's due process protections were uniformly denied on at least eight separate occasions by one of the main judicial protagonists in the unfolding scandal in Lima.  Judicial failures of this nature in a requesting state are obvious warning signs to U.S. authorities.  

       Whether an extradition request meets U.S. constitutional standards is a question that can be analyzed by U.S. authorities at several levels, beginning with the Departments of State and Justice in Washington, D.C.  The question also can be analyzed by U.S. prosecutors, during initial judicial proceedings, or on appeal.  Ideally, to conserve scarce taxpayer resources questionable cases should not be committed to the judiciary at all.

    Where a requesting state forwards an extradition demand to U.S. authorities that plainly suggests involvement of corrupt, biased jurists in the requesting state, political motivation, or both, the demand cannot lawfully be executed in the United States.

    While this may be diplomatically uncomfortable for both governments in the short term, U.S. denial of an extradition demand tainted by judicial misconduct can have positive long term effects by encouraging the requesting state to improve its performance, and by protecting international treaty channels from defective extradition demands.    

 Roger F. Noriega y Richard J. Douglas are advisers to Dr. Alejandro Toledo in the United States.  They have long experience in diplomacy, politics, and the courts of their country.

Toledo Facts No. 14

Statement by Alejandro Toledo on U.S. Engagement on Venezuela

May 19, 2018

I welcome the strong statements made recently by senior U.S. government officials regarding the oppression and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela.  These declarations commit the United States to provide humanitarian aid to desperate Venezuelans and to apply more effective sanctions against officials of the regime of Nicolás Maduro. 


Dr. Luis Almagro, our Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Governments of 14 Latin American and Caribbean nations who comprise the Group of Lima demanded a restoration of democratic order and the amelioration of human suffering caused by repression and destructive economic policies and corruption in Venezuela.  Having very senior U.S. officials support this cause with unambiguous leadership is an indispensable and positive contribution. 


Last week, Vice President Mike Pence, speaking before the OAS Permanent Council, pledged humanitarian aid and additional sanctions targeting corrupt officials and human rights violators.  He called on other countries to follow this lead, matching words with concrete action.


Earlier this month, the new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking before a gathering of U.S. diplomats, branded Maduro “a dictator” who “cripples his economy and starves his people.”  The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, told a conference on the Americas at the State Department last week, “The Maduro regime threatens the peace and security of the entire region,” declaring clearly, “It’s time for Maduro to go.”  Ambassador John Bolton, President Trump’s new National Security Advisor, told Voice of America last week that he will work to expose and punish the “repressive regime” in Venezuela.


These statements are a positive sign that officials in the United States

 Administration are determined to play a much more active role in defending the U.S. interests and values that are at stake in South America today.  New appointees—including the new Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Kirsten Madision, and the nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Kim Breier—can exercise more vigorous and effective diplomacy to defend U.S. interests and values that are at stake in South America today.


As president of Peru, I forged mutually beneficial partnerships with Washington to promote sustained equitable growth, protect the rule of law, and confront terrorism and illegal drugs.  Although some on the left view Washington’s influence in a negative light, as a committed believer in democracy, I am convinced that there is no substitute for U.S. and Latin American Countries engagement as we work together to make the Americas more prosperous and secure.


Frankly, I am alarmed that these fundamental principles are at stake in Peru, with the resurgence of fujimorismo—which hid behind populism and nationalism to concentrate power in the hands of a corrupt and ruthless dictator.  By forging a strong relationship with the United States, we helped restore democracy, prosperity, and accountability.  It is my hope that vigorous new U.S. leaders understand that everything we achieved together is being threatened by a new generation of corrupt and unaccountable caudillos who are persecuting me as their principal political foe and as a friend of the United States.




Toledo Facts No. 13


Statement of Alejandro Toledo, Ph.D.

President of Peru, 2001-2006

April 12, 2018


On the eve of the Summit of the Americas in Lima, Peru, the world was shocked by yet another apparent use of poison gas against Syrian civilians by the criminal Assad regime.  Several days ago, after reports surfaced of the poison gas attack in Douma, the Government of the Russian Federation came swiftly to the defense of its Syrian client, as it did last year.  In the Americas, Russia's influence is also keenly felt through its client regime in Venezuela.


Under these grave circumstances, it is both understandable and prudent that the President of the United States would remain in Washington, D.C.  I therefore warmly welcome the presence of U.S. Vice President Michael Pence and his delegation in Peru.


The United States has shown enormous solidarity with Peru in the past, and it is appreciated today.  During my presidency, when the United States suffered the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, I remember vividly that Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Lima.  On that tragic day, I offered Peru's resolute support to the United States.  Today, in the same spirit of human solidarity, I believe democratic leaders at the Summit should adopt a forceful resolution condemning the use of poison gas against Syrian civilians.


Such attacks are gross violations of international law.  They should not be tolerated quietly in a world united not only by rapid developments in technology, but also by democratic convictions and commitment to the defense of human rights and the rule of law.


The toxic influence of regimes like those in Syria, Russia, and Venezuela should be resisted in the Americas.  Wherever the rule of law prevails, such regimes must be held accountable for their behavior.







Q:   Is it true Peru's chief justice, Duberli Rodríguez, once again commented publicly on the politically-motivated Toledo extradition matter in spite of the fact that it remains under active judicial review in Peru?


A:    Yes.  March 15, 2018, press reports indicate Dr. Rodríguez stated publicly on March 14th that Peru wants "reciprocity from United States authorities, because when their extradition requests come to us, above all for narcotics trafficking, we do not delay more than three months."  


Q:   Has Mr. Rodríguez characterized correctly the status of the extradition request or the reasons behind the lack of U.S. response?


A:    No.  He has risibly distorted it.


First, it should be borne in mind that in the Toledo extradition matter, a Fujimorist clique that is calling the shots in Lima is indifferent to "reciprocity" or the pursuit of justice.  Rather, officials are more interested in organizing a political-judicial show-trial  for Alejandro Toledo to coincide with the Summit of the Americas.  They are hoping that the U.S. government will help legitimize this persecution.


Mr. Rodgriquez's unfortunate remarks, if reported accurately, should be understood for what they are:  an act of desperation, and an implicit threat to withhold Peru’s international legal cooperation with the United States unless Washington joins Peru's tainted Toledo extradition effort.  Such threats are a common tactic among states that, for illegitimate and unsubstantiated reasons, send defective or unexecutable extradition requests to states where the rule of law prevails.  


As we have seen for more than a year, Fujimorist senior officials in Lima routinely distort the facts to advance Peru's effort to return Dr. Toledo to Lima for a rigged show trial.  But the real obstacle to a Toledo extradition is not a lack of U.S. reciprocity.   It is the total absence of evidence—a fatal defect to the Peruvian extradition package.  An appeal for "reciprocity" will not miraculously heal a defective extradition request.  


U.S. extradition requests to Peru and other U.S. partners on the whole are executed swiftly for other reasons.  Here are a few of them.


U.S. extradition requests do not abuse bilateral treaties with flagrant political attacks on political adversaries.  U.S. requests are based upon legitimate police work, not illegitimate, politically-motivated vengeance.  U.S. requests are invariably well-founded with ample credible evidence—or responsible U.S. officials will not allow them to be forwarded to U.S. partners.  U.S. requests never entail open U.S. judicial bias against an accused or other misconduct by U.S. Executive Branch officials.  Finally, U.S. requests originate with a government that cherishes the rule of law too much to distort it for political ends.  All of the foregoing defects are present in Peruvian proceedings against Dr. Toledo.  Therefore, according to the plain language of the U.S.-Peru treaty, Peru's extradition request must be denied.


The lawlessness of the Fujimorist elite governing Peru—not a lack of U.S. reciprocity—is responsible for the status of the Toledo extradition matter.  


Indeed, the disturbing Fujimorist spectacle that has unfolded in Lima against Alejandro Toledo for more than a year calls into question the appropriateness of Peru as host of the upcoming Summit of the Americas.  It also suggests strongly that the United States should reconsider urgently its participation, at any level, in the April Summit.   




Toledo Facts Issue No. 11



Q:       On Sunday, February 18, 2018, the Peruvian daily newspaper El Comercio posted this headline on its web page (translated to English): 


"Alejandro Toledo's Defense Delays Odebrecht Trial"


            The accompanying article states (translated to English):

"Alejandro Toledo, a fugitive in the United States since last year, has not let a single opportunity pass to try to dismiss or return to the files the Odebrecht Case proceedings, in which he is being investigated for the offenses of influence-peddling, collusion, and money-laundering as a result of presumed payoffs received from Brazilian companies during his presidency."


Are the El Comercio headline and article accurate?


A:        An accurate headline would read:

"Toledo Survives a Year of Politically-Motivated Fujimorist Attacks"

            Here are examples of what the El Comercio report omits:


·         Dr. Toledo left Peru lawfully and under no judicial impediment.  He is not a fugitive.

·         Dr. Toledo has not been formally charged with any of the offenses listed in the article.  Prosecutors are maintaining the case in the investigative stage to prevent Toledo defense team access to state "evidence" and the prevaricating felons who serve as state "witnesses".


·         In February, 2017, the leading Peruvian judge in the Toledo case demonstrated concrete judicial bias against Dr. Toledo by announcing that the "presumption of innocence is not absolute" in the Toledo matter.  That judge, a reliable Fujimorist disciple, should have been removed from the case a year ago.  He remains in place.   


            Alejandro Toledo has no interest in prolonging the damaging, politically-motivated proceedings against him in Peru.  The actions of Toledo lawyers in Lima are explained in reality by the long chain of due process violations against Toledo perpetrated by the Fujimorist Administration in Lima.  In its politically-motivated pursuit of Dr. Toledo, that Administration has violated the Peruvian Criminal Code, the Peruvian Constitution, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the INTERPOL Charter.  To criticize Dr. Toledo for fighting to defend himself from the Fujimorist onslaught encourages greater misconduct from the anti-Toledo Fujimorists who govern Peru.





Toledo Facts Issue No. 10


Q:        On February 6, Peruvian prosecutors denied reports that their extradition request against Dr. Toledo had been returned to them by a Peruvian judge for "corrections".  Why?


A:        Because, due to political considerations, prosecutors are obliged to defend a fiction.  Prosecutors have no credible evidence tying Dr. Toledo to wrong-doing.  In the Toledo matter, Peru's problem is not one of "corrections" -- it is a matter of Fujimorist political vengeance against Dr. Toledo and mounting deprivations of due process.  Prosecutors and judges are the agents for that political vengeance.


Q:        Prosecutors insist that, in preparing a Toledo extradition package, they "strictly         complied with norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure." 


A:        The Code of Peru or North Korea?  The Peruvian Government has openly violated Dr. Toledo's fundamental right to due process.  Peru has violated its own Criminal Code and Constitution in its politically-motivated effort to imprison Dr. Toledo.  Peru has even abused the INTERPOL Charter and the U.S.-Peru extradition treaty.


Q:        Prosecutors also claim to have sent to the responsible Peruvian judge all elements        required under the U.S.-Peru extradition agreement.


A:        Impossible.  There has been no corroboration of any "witness" statement.  Under coercion one witness even contradicted himself about Dr. Toledo's non-involvement with Odebrecht payoffs.  Some accusations against Dr. Toledo are barred by judicial order or the statute of limitations.   None are supported by probable cause or corroboration.  Even at this late date, Dr. Toledo has not been formally charged in Peru.  By confining the matter to the investigative stage, prosecutors may obstruct, and have repeatedly obstructed, Toledo defense team access to evidence and witnesses.  


Q:        So why did prosecutors publish a February 6 press release insisting, in essence, that   their Toledo extradition request is proceeding well?


A:        For political reasons.  Like the proceedings against Dr. Toledo in general, prosecutor statements are driven by political considerations.  There is enormous political pressure on Peruvian judges and prosecutors to send anything to the U.S. that even remotely resembles a proper extradition request for Dr. Toledo.  Peruvian authorities know, however, that the U.S. will not execute a request that does not satisfy the requirements of the treaty.  But that inescapable reality has not stopped their reckless effort.  That effort is driven exclusively by political considerations imposed upon them by the anti-Toledo Fujimorists who, in reality, govern Peru.


Q:        In 2017, Peru sent a "provisional arrest request" to the U.S. for Dr. Toledo.    Why is            Peru now preparing an "extradition request"?


A:        In our judgment, most probably Dr. Toledo was not taken into U.S. custody in 2017 for two reasons:  a lack of evidence, and the shamelessly political nature of the Peruvian proceedings against him.


Since early 2017, these defects have been magnified by events in Peru, not cured.  Therefore, we do not expect the "extradition request" for Dr. Toledo now under construction in Peru to induce the U.S. government to change its position.


Dr. Toledo and his spouse reside quietly and lawfully in California.  Given that we have no access to any U.S. government channel about the Toledo matter, we can only speculate about the U.S. government perspective.  But the fact that Dr. Toledo is not custody tells us much about the true character of the Peruvian Government's frantic efforts against him. 





Toledo Facts Issue No. 9


Q:       On January 19, 2018, a Peruvian appellate court nullified multiple Odebrecht arrest warrants because of uncorroborated prosecutor accusations.  Does this appellate court decision affect Peru’s efforts against Dr. Toledo?


A:        It directly undermines them.  The appellate court essentially confirmed that the Peruvian Government relied upon a "witness", incarcerated in Brazil, whose accusations have never been corroborated, although the accusations were used to demand Dr. Toledo's provisional arrest from another government and Interpol Red Notices.


            In 2017, the Peruvian Government formulated demands to another government for Dr. Toledo's provisional arrest with a view to extradition, and two mala fide Interpol Red Notice requests against him.  Jorge Barata, a convicted felon incarcerated in Brazil, is at the foundation of the Peruvian arrest warrants which underlay both requests.


            On January 19, 2018, however, a Peruvian appellate court destroyed that foundation.  In a parallel Odebrecht investigation involving five Peruvian businessmen (“the Businessmen”), Peru’s First National Criminal Appeals Court (Primera Sala Penal de Apelaciones Nacional -- “the Appeals Court”) judicially nullified arrest warrants against the Businessmen that also rested upon the Barata foundation. (Res. 8, Exp. No. 16-2017-74, attached.)


           The Appeals Court ruled that arrest warrants against the Businessmen shared a fundamental defect:  while attributing to Barata information used to obtain the arrest warrants, prosecutors had presented no corroborating evidence to the Lower Court for the warrants.


           Why does this appellate case matter for Dr. Toledo?  The warrants nullified by the Appeals Court were issued by the same Peruvian lower court judge (“the Lower Court”) who issued arrest warrants against Dr. Toledo.  They, too, rested on the Barata foundation.


            When prosecutors and the Lower Court forwarded the Toledo provisional arrest request to a treaty partner and the Red Notice requests to INTERPOL, they were no doubt aware that there had been no corroboration of the allegations against Dr. Toledo or members of his family.


           We cannot state unequivocally that prosecutors and the Lower Court knowingly sought provisional arrest and Interpol Red Notices against Dr. Toledo using allegations which, to this day, are uncorroborated.  It is perfectly reasonable to infer this, however, given the Appeals Court’s decision and the relentless character of the Peruvian Government’s politically-motivated pursuit of Dr. Toledo.


            For months, the Toledo defense has argued, correctly, that there has been no corroboration of accusations against Dr. Toledo attributed to Barata or any other “witness”.  On January 19, 2018, the Appeals Court indirectly concurred.  Yet every Toledo petition for judicial redress has been summarily rejected by the Peruvian courts for predominantly political reasons.


            Nearly a full year after the Peruvian Government's provisional arrest request and its first request to Interpol, Peruvian prosecutors have still not formally charged Dr. Toledo with any criminal offense in Peru.  On January 19th, the Appeals Court indirectly revealed the reason:   there is no corroborating evidence.





Toledo Facts Issue No. 8


Q:        A document has surfaced on a Peruvian web page purporting to be a "Transcription" of extra-judicial “testimony” of Josef Maiman against Dr. Toledo.   


A:        The "Transcription" is not Maiman’s testimony.  It was authored by Peruvian prosecutors Hamilton Castro and Angela Zuloaga, whose signatures appear at the bottom of the published document.  This "Transcription" raises more questions about the credibility of Peruvian prosecutors than it does about Dr. Toledo.


As explained below, the complete prosecution document – entitled “Document No. 05-2017” -- has two parts:


            Part One:       "Declaration" of February 2, 2017             (page 1)


            This section is not Maiman's declaration.  It is an unsupported prosecution invention.  In a document Dr. Toledo has never seen, purporting to memorialize a February 2, 2017, meeting he did not attend, prosecutors directly attribute to Toledo a 2006 statement that he did not make.  The prosecution's February 2, 2017, "declaration" is simply inserted into Document No. 05-2017 (which was prepared over 9 months later) with no indicators of provenance, venue, circumstances, participants, authenticity, relevance, or reliability. 


            Part Two:       "Declaration" of November 5, 2017            (pages 2-4)


            This section is not Maiman's declaration either.  It was authored by Prosecutors Castro and Zuloaga.  No Maiman signature is affixed.  It was prepared in Lima on November 9, not simultaneously with Maiman's November 5 interview with prosecutors in Israel.  In fact, nothing indicates Maiman has knowledge of Document No. 05-2017 at all.


            In Document No. 05-2017, Castro/Zuloaga brutally redacted the alleged Maiman "declaration".  The Document ends citing paragraph 79 of Maiman 's purported "declaration".  But the Document includes only 21 paragraphs of that "declaration."  In other words, prosecutors cut 58 paragraphs from the purported Maiman "declaration," raising serious questions:


--  Did prosecutors cut Maiman testimony exonerating Dr. Toledo?

--  Did prosecutors cut Maiman testimony further implicating Maiman?

--  Did prosecutors cut Maiman testimony further implicating Keiko Fujimori and Alan Garcia?


            Maiman could have a superhuman memory, but in the Castro/Zuloaga Document, it is more likely that prosecutors supplied questions and the desired answers to Maiman.  The Castro/Zuloaga Document recites alleged comments from Maiman that can only be understood as displaying a lack of knowledge or recollection of events, thus:


--          paragraph 39:  "No recuerdo fecha exacta, …"

--          paragraph 43:  "No recuerdo exactamente cuándo, …"  "No estoy al tanto de detalles… ni                                    con quienes…"

--          paragraph 44:  "No cuento con ningún detalle del modo en que se llevo a cabo dicho                                             acuerdo o quiénes fueron los participantes en el."                 

--          paragraph 50:  "Era obvio….."

--          paragraph 57:  "Imagino que ….."

--          paragraph 70:  "Asumo que …. no recuerdo detalles …  Pero el tema de Camargo no                                            habia sido coordinado por  mi persona."


            Document No. 05-2017 nonetheless purports to convey Maiman's almost superhuman recollection, in microscopic detail, of bank account numbers and names, transfer dates, and quantities in connection with events of 13 years ago.  Prosecutors obviously fed detailed information to Maiman during their secret interview in Israel, inserted bank data unilaterally into the "transcription" of the purported Maiman "declaration" after the fact, or both.


            Document No. 15-2017 also raises serious questions about the provenance of bank data it includes.  The Peruvian media reported in January 2018 that Swiss officials declined Peruvian judicial requests for bank data, because Peru's Swiss expert violated Swiss "revolving door" restrictions on post-government employment.  Bank data included by Peruvian authorities in Document No. 15-2017, therefore, is of undetermined origin and entitled to no weight.


            Even if Document No. 05-2017 were truly based on Maiman testimony, Maiman's testimony was coerced.  It has no evidentiary value.  In Maiman's long interview with EFE on September 12, 2017, he left no doubt that his cooperation with Peruvian prosecutors was coerced by a Peruvian judicial order for his preventive imprisonment, and an INTERPOL Red Notice against him requested by the Peruvian Government.  In nations where the rule of law prevails, prosecutorial coercion destroys the value of resulting "evidence." 


            Document No. 05-2017 confirms the absence of probative evidence against Dr. Toledo.  Prosecutors coerced Maiman into collaborating with them in a non-judicial setting in Israel.  In Israel, those proceedings were contaminated by secrecy and extra-judicial maneuvering to conceal them from Toledo’s defense team.  Prosecutors now produce redacted "evidence" not ratified and apparently not even seen by Maiman.  Brutal prosecutor redactions almost certainly conceal efforts to protect individuals like Keiko Fujimori and Alan Garcia.  Document No. 05-2017 strongly indicates that prosecutors closely guided Maiman's testimony or simply inserted desired data unilaterally into their "transcription" of Maiman’s purported “declaration.”  Finally, prosecutors appear to have relied on bank data rendered unreliable by their own Swiss expert's misconduct. 


Events surrounding the pardon of former President Alberto Fujimori confirm the political dominance of Dr. Toledo's bitter political rivals over the Peruvian Government.  The Document seen on the Peruvian web page is yet another indicator of their politically-motivated effort to subject Dr. Toledo to a vengeful political show trial in Lima.





Toledo Facts Issue No. 7


Q:  Has former President Alejandro Toledo commented on the situation in Peru?


A:   Please see Dr. Toledo's January 8th statement, below


Q:  How should the U.S. government respond to events in Peru and the Fujimori pardon?


A:   We do not and cannot speak for the U.S. government.  We are confident that Washington is monitoring the situation in Peru and the outpouring of opposition to the Fujimori pardon carefully.  A measured, proportional diplomatic approach to the pardon of Alberto Fujimori for crimes against his own people would be formal refusal of Peru's politically-motivated request to extradite the Peruvian leader who dismantled the Fujimori dictatorship and then worked to bring Fujimori to justice -- Alejandro Toledo.






Statement of Former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo Manrique on Events in Peru 

January 8, 2018


For a year, I have sounded the alarm about Fujimori family domination of the Peruvian Government.  Recent events in Peru compellingly demonstrate that my concerns are justified.  No longer an instrument for the betterment of Peruvians, the Government's true nature, as a Fujimorist device for self-perpetuation, impunity, and destruction of political opponents, is on full display. 
Eighteen years ago, through the historic "Marcha de los Cuatro Suyos," we unified and led democratic parties, civil society, indigenous people, and students from the four regions of the ancient Inca Empire -- modern Peru -- in dismantling Alberto Fujimori's dictatorship.  As Peru's President from 2001 to 2006, we restored the free press, and began to rebuild civil society and democratic institutions.  We made Peru's economy the most successful in Latin America.  
Today, the dictator's daughter, Keiko Fujimori, controls the Peruvian Congress.  She uses that power to erode Peruvian democracy rather than fortify it.  The country is divided over Fujimorist attacks on weakened Peruvian institutions.  Sadly, no Peruvian institution is weaker or more vulnerable to manipulation than the criminal justice system. 
In December, the Fujimori family and its agents battered Peru's democratically-elected President, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, into pardoning Alberto Fujimori.  In exchange, the Fujimorists allowed President Kuczynski to remain in office, although he is accused of financial wrongdoing related to Odebrecht. 
The same Fujimorist clique had already been manipulating the Peruvian judicial system for years to falsely paint me as a criminal, to silence me, and to immunize itself from accountability for its own corruption. 
In fact, almost continuously since the end of my presidency, I have been disparaged by the Peruvian Government.  That is the price I willingly pay for defending human rights and working to bring Alberto Fujimori to justice.  The Odebrecht matter afforded the Fujimori family and its collaborators a unique opportunity:  to consolidate their political control over the Peruvian Government, free the Fujimori patriarch, and take severe reprisals against me and others through Peru's vulnerable institutions and international relationships. 
Peru's presidency, judiciary, attorney general, and Fujimorist media have enabled these efforts.  Using the Odebrecht scandal as a weapon, Fujimorist manipulators of Peruvian institutions and public opinion continue to work diligently today to destroy my reputation, and to imprison me without charges, due process, or credible evidence.   
A new chapter in the infamous history of Fujimorism in Peru is being written.  We will continue to fight the falsehoods about us originating in Lima, and we are unbroken.  But my family's ordeal pales in comparison to the toll that will be taken on ordinary Peruvians by this monumental setback to their liberty. 








December 21, 2017


Developments in Peru during the last seven days ought to be a source of profound international concern.


Tragically, my friend and former colleague, President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, is being attacked by a political creature born of the bowels of authoritarianism, with a lack of true conviction for democracy, true respect for the constitution, human rights, and the judicial due process for all Peruvians.


Instead, Fujimorism is on the march again in Peru, provoking a national political crisis to obscure the corrupt behavior of its leader, Keiko Fujimori.  The cynical manipulation of Peruvian politics and institutions is a classic Fujimorist tactic, with parallels to the period just prior to the April 1992 Fujimori "autogolpe". Peruvians, the American continent, and democratic nations cannot allow this return to authoritarianism in disguise from the nineties. Their silence, in this globalized world in which we share connectivity, could be judged by history as complicit in this return to authoritarianism.  


As one who led the civic movement that helped expose the unconstitutional abuses, corruption, and human rights violations of the Fujimori regime, I must now speak out against its revival, and in defense of the rule of law, democratic institutions, and political stability that are essential to the well-being of all Peruvians. Stable and sustainable economic growth is crucial to generating employment, higher incomes for the people and for the state to invest in medical cae and quality education for all Peruvians, beginning with the poorest of the poor. Authoritarianism impedes investment, creates social instability and a loss of hope for Peru's youth and future generations. The political ambitions of the Fujimorists for power, without the controls of independent institutions, can only lead to still more corruption.


Today, Peru's democratic institutions are in jeopardy.  As one who has been personally victimized by the Fujimorist mob, I reject the attacks on Peru's democratically elected President. Peruvians and history will determine if our governments, in this case that of President Kuczynski, led our country thinking of generating employment social inclusion, and the independence of institutions IN DEMOCRACY.




Toledo Facts Issue No. 6


Q:  Is it true that Peruvian President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski has finally spoken out against the judicial abuses and overreach of Peruvian authorities in charge of the Odebrecht investigation in Peru?


A:   Yes -- but Kuczynski spoke out to defend Keiko Fujimori, not Alejandro Toledo.  According to Reuters, on December 7th President Kuczynski said Peruvian authorities had "gone too far" by raiding the offices of Keiko Fujimori's political party, and that authorities should "respect the rules of the game".  According to Reuters, Kuczynski added:  "if there isn't respect for due process, [Peru] won't be respected internationally." 



Q:  In early 2017, Lima Judge Ricardo Concepción ordered forced pólice entry into Dr. Toledo's private Lima residence in the middle of the night without notification to the Toledo defense team.  Judge Concepción stated on the record during February proceedings against Dr. Toledo that the presumption of innocence is "not absolute" where Dr. Toledo is concerned.  Since then, Peruvian authorities have otherwise carried out a vicious and politically-motivated international campaign of defamation and harrassment against Dr. Toledo.  How many times has President Kuczynski said, in the Toledo case, that Peruvian authorities have "gone too far", must "respect the rules of the game", and must also "respect due process"?


A:  Never.  President Kuczynski has been silent on the cascade of politically-motivated judicial and prosecutorial attacks on Dr. Toledo.  Worse, in spite of no credible evidence of wrongdoing, and almost certainly at Keiko Fujimori's insistence, President Kuczynski twice pressured U.S. president Donald Trump personally to extradite Dr. Toledo to Peru.



Q:  Why has President Kuczynski defended Keiko Fujimori, but remained silent on Dr. Toledo?


A:   Only President Kuczynski knows the answer to this question.  However, it is reasonable to wonder whether Kuczynski's failure to support Keiko Fujimori, who controls an absolute majority in the Peruvian Congress, would result in Kuczynski's removal from the presidency.  Likewise, a lack of zeal in his pursuit of Alejandro Toledo (who brought Keiko's father to justice for massive human rights violations and corruption) could lead to the same result.



Q:  Is Keiko Fujimori under suspicion for some reason?


A:  In two separate interviews with Brazilian and Peruvian authorities, imprisoned Odebrecht director general Marcelo Odebrecht stated that the Odebrecht enterprise made illegal payoffs to Keiko Fujimori and former Peruvian President Alan Garcia.  Yet Peruvian authorities have taken no serious action against either of these powerful Peruvian figures.



Q:  Doesn't the raid of Keiko's party offices mean the Peruvian government is cracking down on her?


A:   Not necessarily.  Some observers see the raid and Kuczyinski's December 7th response as a choreographed "Montesinos" charade, intended to create an illusion of evenhandedness for foreign observers, and undo damage in foreign capitals caused by Peruvian authorities with their relentless, single-minded extradition effort against Dr. Toledo.



Q:  So what are the contours of a genuine "crack down" on Keiko Fujimori?


A:  At a minimum:  preventive imprisonment (as Concepción ordered for Dr. Toledo and former Peruvian President Ollanta Humala), unannounced, forced night searches of Keiko's private residences;  seizures and forfeitures of Keiko's real estate holdings and personal assets;  a freeze on Keiko's bank accounts and pensions;  continuing public and media harrassment of Keiko by Peruvian officials and media;  interference with Keiko's ability to earn a living;  and a Peruvian government request to INTERPOL for a Red Notice against Keiko.  All of these crippling measures were taken against Dr. Toledo with the active complicity and encouragement of President Kuczynski and Keiko Fujimori.  Without these measures, there is no Peruvian government "crack down" on Keiko Fujimori.




Q:  Did Marcelo Odebrecht mention Alejandro Toledo during the two interviews with Brazilian and Peruvian prosecutors?


A:  No.  In both interviews, Mr. Odebrecht exonerated Dr. Toledo by mentioning only Keiko Fujimori and Alan Garcia as payoff recipients.  Yet Peruvian authorities continue their frantic pursuit of Dr. Toledo.




Q:  In light of the politically-motivated, obviously-distorted, and deeply unconstitutional campaign against Dr. Toledo, why would Peru be hosting the 2018 Summit of the Americas?  Isn't the theme "Democratic Governance Against Corruption"?


A:  Excellent question.




Toledo Facts Issue No. 5




Q: In mid-November, Peruvian media disclosed that the senior Odebrecht executive jailed in Brazil for his central role in his company’s bribery scandal claimed that his firm helped fund the presidential campaign of Keiko Fujimori.  What has Peru’s judicial system done to investigate this claim against Fujimori?


A:  Peruvian authorities have done nothing to investigate Keiko Fujimori after Marcelo Odebrecht repeated in a November 19 interrogation that he had direct knowledge of an illicit payment to the Fujimori campaign.  Instead of targeting Fujimori, on December 3, 2017, at the request of Prosecutor Hamilton Castro, orders for detention without charges were issued against five businessmen with no ties to Fujimori.  The executives apparently will be accused of corruption--without basis in fact or law. These arrest orders were issued by the same Lima judge who ruled improperly in February that the presumption of innocence is “not absolute” for former Peruvian president Alejandro Toledo.


Q: Why did Castro and the Judge act against the five new defendants?  


A: Odebrecht’s repeated accusation implicating Keiko Fujimori provoked a furious response from her party’s bloc in Congress, which took the offensive to divert attention from Keiko’s alleged corrupt behavior by launching accusations against the prosecutor, Hamilton Castro, and calling for the heads of the five executives. 


Prosecutor Castro's request to the judge for the arrest orders against the five executives came just days after Yeni Vilcatoma, a member of the Fujimori congressional bloc, denounced Castro formally at the Public Ministry's oversight office for laxity in going after Peruvian commercial entities allegedly involved with the Odebrecht enterprise.


A faithful ally of Keiko Fujimori, Vilcatoma also has denounced National Prosecutor Pablo Sanchez to the Peruvian Congress and the National Magistrate's Council for the stalled Government judicial harassment of Dr. Toledo.


By exerting pressure on executives involved in the inter-oceanic road project, authorities hope to draw attention from the claim against Fujimori and perhaps to pressure the detained executives to support the unfounded accusations against Toledo.


Q: Does Fujimori Congressional Bloc involvement mean that Castro’s request and the judge’s order are politically-motivated?


A: Flagrantly, yes. indeed, on November 25th, Castro confirmed Vilcatoma’s political objective in the Peruvian press (El Comercio):  (Translated from Spanish) 


"[Vilcatoma] is playing politics, not me.  In that logic, I think her arguments are political, not juridical.  I'm no politician, I'm a prosecutor, and I'll defend myself with judicial arguments."  

Despite Castro’s feeble, pro forma protest, four days later, on November 29th, this "apolitical" prosecutor bowed to Vilcatoma’s political pressure and requested orders for arrest without charges against the five businessmen.

Only the most naïve observers will fail to perceive that Castro’s request and the Court’s arrest orders were tailored to satisfy Vilcatoma's political effort to protect Keiko Fujimori at the expense of Peruvian citizens with less political power, including Toledo.


A genuinely apolitical prosecutor would have terminated the politicized proceedings against Dr. Toledo long ago.




Toledo Facts Issue No. 4



For a Second Time, Jailed Odebrecht CEO Omits Alejandro Toledo From "Payoff" List


Q: Has Marcelo Odebrecht, a central figure in the scandal involving alleged bribes to Latin American officials, ever named Alejandro Toledo as a person receiving illicit payments?


A: No. Media reports regarding several interrogations of the imprisoned Marcelo Odebrecht CEO do not mention Toledo's name-with the most recent interview occurring early this month at Odebrecht's place of confinement in Curitiba, Brazil.  According to a November 10 report published by Peruvian daily El Comercio, in an interview with Peruvian and Brazilian prosecutors on November 9, Odebrecht named powerful politicians Keiko Fujimori and Alan Garcia as recipients of payoffs-while omitting Alejandro Toledo.  During a May 2017 interview with prosecutors, Peruvian media noted at the time, Marcelo Odebrecht named Fujimori and García to investigators, but did not name Toledo.


Numerous requests by Toledo's legal counsel for transcripts of these interviews have been summarily denied.  In light of the prosecutors' daily media campaign against Toledo, if his name were mentioned it would be trumpeted in the headlines.  It is not clear what Odebrecht was asked by or said to Peruvian investigators-who have based their case almost entirely on the hearsay testimony of two unreliable sources.


Q: Have Peruvian prosecutors granted special treatment to Keiko Fujimori?


A: Yes.  The November 10 El Comercio report reveals that Keiko Fujimori's private lawyers were present during the meeting between prosecutors and Marcelo Odebrecht.  This revelation is significant for several reasons:


  • It is highly unusual for the private lawyers of a potential prosecutorial target to be present during prosecution questioning of a prosecution witness about the target's conduct-more so when questioning occurs in a foreign state pursuant to a mutual legal assistance treaty.

  • The presence of Keiko Fujimori's private lawyers during the interrogation in Curitiba stands in stark contrast with the Peruvian Government's summary denials of requests by the Toledo defense team for access to Marcelo Odebrecht, to other purported "witnesses" against Toledo, and to the statements taken from these individuals.

  • In fact, Peruvian authorities have summarily denied every Toledo defense team discovery request to date, illustrating the politicized, anti-constitutional nature of Peruvian proceedings against former President Toledo. 




Toledo Facts Issue No. 3



Q: Have there been developments in the Peruvian Courts on the Toledo matter?


A: Yes.  Peru's politicized witch hunt for Dr. Toledo appears to have played a decisive role in the Peruvian Supreme Court's October 25 decision to drastically relax money laundering evidentiary requirements so Peruvian prosecutors may bring such charges more easily.  The Supreme Court's opinion, available at the link included below, appears to be an undisguised judicial branch "rescue mission" for Peruvian prosecutors who have failed to connect Dr. Toledo to illegal activity in the Odebrecht and Ecoteva matters.  As noted in a handful of strong dissents to the Supreme Court's order, no case or controversy existed to compel the action.  There were no differences in approach among lower Peruvian courts that required Supreme Court clarification.  Instead, the dissenters imply that the sole purpose of this Supreme Court action was to help frustrated Peruvian prosecutors charge Dr. Toledo without reliable evidence. 


Q: Why would Peru's highest court involve itself in such a transparently anti-Toledo sham? 


A: We now know that, in Peru, even the Supreme Court is amenable to distorting judicial and procedural norms in the politicized hunt for Dr. Toledo.  In fact, one of Dr. Toledo's most vocal assailants in the international press has been the nominally-impartial Peruvian Chief Justice, Duberli Rodriguez.


Q: Have Peruvian courts entertained any appeals or requests for habeas corpus from Dr. Toledo's legal team in Peru?


A: Not a single one.  For political reasons, Peruvian courts have violated Dr. Toledo's constitutionally-protected right to due process in Peru, flagrantly and with impunity.  Recently, Judge Abel Concha, a lower court magistrate involved in the Ecoteva matter, had the temerity to mildly question the sufficiency of prosecutor evidence and their preparations for a provisional arrest request to the U.S., whereupon the full weight of the Peruvian judiciary and political establishment came down upon Concha, and he was formally disciplined. 


Q: What does the Supreme Court's action tell us about the likelihood of a fair trial in Peru for Dr. Toledo?


A: The Peruvian Supreme Court's unabashed support for the Peruvian Government's politicized pursuit of Dr. Toledo erases any lingering doubt:  a fair and impartial trial in Peru for Dr. Toledo is an impossibility. 


Here is a link to the Peruvian Supreme Court’s October 25, 2017 order (in Spanish):




Toledo Facts Issue No. 2



Q:  Has Dr. Toledo been able to defend himself in Peruvian courts?


A:  Peru's Constitution recognizes a citizen's right to defend himself in criminal proceedings.  But Peruvian prosecutors, judges, and senior officials have combined for political reasons to interfere with Toledo's exercise of this fundamental right and convict him with secret evidence. 


  • Peru's judiciary and prosecutors have summarily denied each and every Toledo defense team request for prosecutor evidence and anti-Toledo witness statements. 

  • Peruvian courts have denied every Toledo defense challenge to the politically-motivated preventive arrest orders against him.  (N.B. the Inter-American Human Rights Commission deems preventive arrest to be a serious human rights concern.)

  • The Peruvian chief justice openly works to influence lower courts against Toledo.

  • The Peruvian attorney general maintains a global campaign of disparagement against Toledo in a transparent effort to obstruct his ability to travel and earn a living.


Q:  Have reliable witnesses backed up claims that Toledo took Odebrecht payments?


A:  No.  The Peruvian campaign against Toledo is politically-motivated by his bitter adversaries in the Fujimori/Garcia camp.  Consequently, no government witness against Toledo is "reliable."


  • In interviews with prosecutors, Marcelo Odebrecht reportedly implicated Keiko Fujimori as a recipient of Odebrecht payoffs, but not Toledo.

  • Putative Toledo accuser Jorge Barata, a former Odebrecht official, stopped cooperating with Peruvian prosecutors when evidence began to indicate bribe-taking by Keiko Fujimori.  Barata and Keiko reportedly have the same law firm in Lima.

  • Peru's latest witness against Toledo, Josef Maiman, repeatedly and voluntarily denied serving as an intermediary for Odebrecht payoffs to Toledo until Peruvian prosecutors targeted him with an INTERPOL Red Notice, a preventive arrest order, and other threats.


Q.  The Odebrecht accusations against Toledo are not credible.  Why haven't Peruvian prosecutors ended their politically-motivated crusade against him?


A.  A good faith investigation would have closed already.  The politically-motivated Peruvian effort against Toledo, however, is not a good faith undertaking.  It may continue until the Peruvian government undergoes significant political change.  By not moving forward with Peru's politically-motivated provisional arrest request for Dr. Toledo, the United States has shown a commendable respect for the rule of law, and a proper regard for the requirements of the U.S.-Peru extradition treaty.  Peruvian government criticism of the United States for failing to arrest Dr. Toledo and return him to Peru for a rigged political show trial is an effort to enlist U.S. authorities in Peru's corrupted anti-Toledo crusade.  It will fail. 




Toledo Facts Issue No. 1



Q:  What are the reasons behind the politicized judicial persecution of Toleldo?


A:  Revenge.  Keiko Fujimori and former president Alan Garcia—two political foes of Dr. Toledo—are powerful patrons of many Peruvian judges and prosecutors.

During Dr. Alejandro Toledo’s presidency (2001-2006), Peruvian authorities initiated an investigation of former president Alberto Fujimori for serious human rights violations and corruption.  These proceedings led to Fujimori’s conviction and incarceration.  Dr. Toledo later helped thwart two presidential bids by Mr. Fujimori’s daughter, Keiko, who, today, is a powerful Congressional leader. 

Dr. Toledo has been a good friend of the United States.  In fact, on September 11, 2001, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Lima when al-Qaeda terrorists attacked the United States.  Dr. Toledo was one of the first world leaders to voice support for the global U.S. campaign against terrorism, and Peruvian personnel also supported U.S. operations in Iraq.  Dr. Toledo was a primary advocate of U.S. trade agreements with Andean countries.


Q:  Is Alejandro Toledo a fugitive from Peruvian justice? 


A:  No.  Former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo's last departure from Peru was perfectly lawful and subject to no restrictions.  He entered the U.S. lawfully and he is a lawful U.S. resident.  He has not been formally charged with any offense in any country.  


Q:  So why did the Peruvian Government request an INTERPOL Red Notice against him?


A:  The Peruvian Government obtained an INTERPOL Red Notice against Dr. Toledo to destroy his ability to earn a living and disparage him.  Peru's government today is dominated by forces loyal to former President Alberto Fujimori, whom Dr. Toledo's government brought to justice for massive human rights violations and corruption.  Sincé February, the Peruvian Government has executed a furious international political campaign to harm Dr. Toledo because of his opposition to Alberto Fujimori, because of his efforts to keep Fujimori's daughter Keiko out of the Peruvian presidency, and for his Quechua identity.  The highest levels of Peru's current and former governments have participated in the campaign.  Former Peruvian President Alan Garcia, a loyal Fujimorist and bitter Toledo enemy, recently attacked Dr. Toledo and his wife, Dr. Eliane Karp, in social media.  Peruvian authorities have attempted to interfere with Dr. Toledo's professional activities in the United States.    


Q:  Did Dr. Toledo take Odebrecht payoffs through intermediary Josef Maiman? 


A:  No.


During a video-conference from Israel with the Peruvian Congress on November 22, 2013, Josef Maiman voluntarily stated the following about the so-called ECOTEVA matter:  "I am going to be very clear and firm;  Dr. Toledo, Doctor Karp, Mr. Avi Dan On, never, never asked me to do any financial operation for them, nor did I manage any money for them, instead keeping myself completely at a distance;  the answer is an overwhelming no. ... With regard to money laundering, it is not something that happened when one admits, admits, that that money is mine ... the 250 million I earned from the sale of my stock in my gas company, very important sums which I earned when I sold the refinery...."  (Translation from Spanish)

During March, 2017 on-the-record prosecutor questioning in Brazil, Odebrecht global president Marcelo Odebrecht named Keiko Fujimori and Alan Garcia -- but not Alejandro Toledo -- as recipients of Odebrecht payoffs.  When Marcelo implicated Alan Garcia and Keiko Fujimori, a second Toledo accuser, Jorge Barata, suspended cooperation with Peruvian prosecutors (note:  the Peruvian media has reported that Barata's law firm in Lima also represents Keiko Fujimori).  Prosecutors then shifted to the ECOTEVA matter as the vehicle for attacking Dr. Toledo.  

In January, 2014, Peruvian National Prosecutor Jose Antonio Pelaez formally closed an exhaustive investigation of Dr. Toledo's finances and concluded that there was "no patrimonial imbalance" to suggest unlawful conduct.

Q:  Then why does Maiman now say that he was an intermediary between Odebrecht and Dr. Toledo?


A:  Only a handful of people know what transpired when a Peruvian prosecutor secretly visited Maiman in Israel in August.  Peruvian authorities denied Dr. Toledo's discovery request (through his Lima lawyers) for information about the meeting. However, in a revealing September 12 interview with EFE, a Spanish wire service, Maiman reportedly stated that the Peruvian judicial system "abused preventive imprisonment" against him and caused Maiman "irreperable harm."  Said Maiman:  "The harm caused to me [by Peruvian authorities] is irreparable, also from a personal point of view", and that the prejudice to Maiman's image caused by judicial handling of the ECOTEVA matter affected Maiman's business.  Maiman added that his experience with Peruvian prosecutors was "possibly one of the most disagreeable episodes" of his life.


Q:  Does that mean Peruvian prosecutors coerced Maiman into changing his statement on Dr. Toledo?


A:  Only Maiman and prosecutors can answer this question.  But when Peruvian authorities effectively lost Marcelo Odebrecht and Jorge Barata as witnesses against Toledo, they clearly targeted Maiman.  They ordered Maiman’s preventive arrest and obtained an INTERPOL Red Notice against him, effectively stranding Maiman, an international businessman, in Israel.  Apparently they also threatened prosecution and asset forfeiture against Maiman, his friends, and his family.  Was there coerción?  Maiman's September 12 comments to EFE (above) speak for themselves.  So do the facts:  after Maiman changed his statements about Toledo, the Peruvian government nullified the preventive arrest order and requested cancellation of the INTERPOL Red Notice it had lodged against Maiman.

bottom of page